Democracy demands strict adherence to electoral discipline, but criminal law cannot be stretched to prosecute every election-time disagreement lacking the basic ingredients of an offence, the Madras High Court has said, quashing criminal proceedings against six men accused of canvassing near a polling booth during the 2021 Tamil Nadu Assembly elections.

The court cautioned that while electoral rules must be respected, courts are equally duty-bound to prevent the misuse of criminal process in the backdrop of political rivalry and election-related tensions.

Justice L Victoria Gowri was hearing a petition filed by six accused persons seeking to quash criminal proceedings pending before the judicial magistrate court, Pattukottai, arising out of a police case registered during the 2021 Assembly polls.

“Democracy undoubtedly demands strict adherence to electoral discipline. Yet, criminal law cannot be stretched to convert every election-time disagreement into a full-fledged criminal prosecution bereft of statutory ingredients. Courts are guardians not only against crime but equally against misuse of criminal process,” the judge said on June 1, allowing the plea.

The petition challenged the continuation of prosecution in a case alleging election-related violations and obstruction of a police officer on duty.

The court stressed that while political rivalry alone cannot justify quashing criminal proceedings, courts must remain alert to attempts to misuse criminal law.

“Courts must remain vigilant against criminal law being employed as a weapon of political retaliation,” Justice Gowri said.

The judge further noted that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, appeared to disclose at best a minor election-time commotion occurring in the heat of political activity without any actual disruption of polling.

The petitioners contended that they had been falsely implicated because of their association with an opposition political party and that the prosecution was politically motivated.

Their counsel argued that despite the incident allegedly taking place in a crowded polling environment, the prosecution had failed to cite a single independent witness.

No voter, polling official or presiding officer had lodged any complaint regarding disruption of polling, obstruction of voters or intimidation.

The defence also pointed out that the observation mahazar did not disclose how the alleged 100-metre prohibited zone had been measured or from which point the measurement was taken.

The court identified several shortcomings in the investigation. These included the absence of independent witnesses, failure to examine the presiding officer or polling officials, lack of evidence proving the existence and measurement of the 100-metre restricted zone, and failure to establish the essential ingredients of the offences alleged.

Justice Gowri also noted that no voter had complained of intimidation or obstruction and that no video footage or contemporaneous election records had been produced to support the prosecution’s claims. “The entire prosecution therefore rests solely upon interested police witnesses without independent corroboration,” the court said.

Holding that the case fell within the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, the court concluded that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of process and unnecessary harassment.

The high court accordingly allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in the case.